The Unsuspecting Transformational Leader:

An Interview with an International School Educational Technology Educator

Warren Griffiths
100388318

EDUC 5205G
Leadership and Technology
Professor: Dr. L. Pinto
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
February 25, 2015

Table of Contents

Introduction

Transformational Leadership - Idealized Influence

Transformational Leadership - Inspirational motivation

Transformational Leadership - Intellectual stimulation

Transformational Leadership - Individualized consideration

Summary

11

Appendix A: Interview Questions and Timecode Location of Answers

14

References

18

Introduction
The purpose of paper is to interview someone in the field of educational technology leadership
and report, after asking a set of relevant course-related questions, if and how their leadership
style fits into the theories discussed within the University of Ontario Institute of Technologys
EDUC 5205G Leadership and Technology course.
KM (a pseudonym I will use in this paper), a former colleague of mine from our Bachelor of Education degree program, is the Coordinator of ICT (as well as Coordinator of Early Years) at the
International School of Breda (http://www.isbreda.nl/) in the Netherlands. In addition to our familiarity making this interview process less daunting, I found KMs situation interesting, as my
professional career has been primarily focused in educational technology. In comparison, KM
had no direct intention to hold a leadership position in educational technology. According to KM
(2015), when ISB (I will continue to use this abbreviation for the International School of Breda)
revisited this educational technology leader position (one that was made redundant in the past),
KM was considered, as he had previously volunteered with technology-in-the-classroom initiatives. His sense of adventure around the implementation of new technology made him a good fit
for the role (KM, 2015).
Considering that my interviewee transitioned more-or-less organically into the role of technology
leadership, I was curious to see if his leadership style follows the theories discussed in EDUC
5205G, either purposely or by happenstance. By analyzing the results of the interview, I will

4
consider the following: (1) Does KMs leadership style fit into what Bass and Avolio (1994) have
labeled the transformational leader supported by the four elements of individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence? (2) What affordances and constraints does KM experience while being the Unsuspecting Transformational
Leader?

Transformational Leadership - Idealized Influence

As cited by Hughes and Burke (2014), the work of Leithwood (1992) and Bass & Avolio (1994)
argue that the transformational leader is first and foremost a role model for those around them. In
this sense, they walk the talk when it comes to any actions or initiatives within an organization.
The values they espouse are on show for all to model and adopt: A foundational principle of
transformational leadership is the promotion of a consistent vision, something that provides followers with meaningful purpose. Transformational leaders work persistently, enthusiastically,
and optimistically to foster a collaborative environment of teamwork and commitment (p. 8). In
addition, espousing the ideals of the organization through right action, the transformative leader,
according to Fullan (2012) can create an environment of collaborative competition. This is a
sort of moral olympics, where those around the leader strive to improve their practice in a
friendly, what you can do, I can do better manner (p. 3). KM sees his primary role, and by definition, idealized influence, as helping promote the redefined use of technology in the classroom.
At the moment, technology implementation at ISB is, what Puentadoras SAMR (See Appendix
D) model would consider the straight substitution of one learning task for another without any
difference in method or end goals. Classroom technology at ISB is largely implemented for

5
mundane tasks such as word processing and simple Internet searching, though KM understands
the affordances technology offers in breaking down the walls of classroom. He envisions technology being used to promote collaboration not only within the classroom but with other likeminded institutions, thus redefining tasks that could not other wise be done without the technology. His hope is by modelling this use of technology, other educators will see the benefit of what
he is doing and join him in the previously mentioned collaborative competition. The issue he
foresees with this, if I build it, they will come, philosophy is that his colleagues are traditional
in their teaching practices, generally believing educational technology lacks sufficient benefits
for modification of delivery methods (KM, 2015). As a leader, KM supports ISBs mandate to be
cutting edge with other international schools. Staying true to older pedagogies may undermine
the schools mission of being a leading institution in 21st Century learning (KM, 2015). Hughes
and Burke (2014) offer several ways the transformative leader can model and promote idealized
influence, including:
Posting links to relevant articles and websites on the school website for the
community to access,
Creating and maintaining a Twitter feed and inviting educators and parents to
follow,
Having release time for teachers to discuss and demonstrate successful use of
technology in the classroom, thus encouraging support within the faculty,
Seeking partnerships with local schools and universities,
and, encouraging the use of social media among teachers to expose them to as
many new educational ideas and resources as possible (p.31-33).

For KM (2015), the key is to engender excitement around the use of classroom technology while
not alienating stakeholders.

Transformational Leadership - Inspirational motivation

Inspirational motivation, according to Hughes and Burke (2014), refers to how well the leader
promotes the vision of an organization, thus inspiring others to follow:
Transformational leaders paint a picture for followers to show them where they
are going; they thereby provide them with motivation to act. They challenge followers to take risks. Leaders with inspirational motivation can communicate goals
in ways that make the vision clear, powerful, and engaging (p.8).
As a result, followers feel motivated by the actions and are more willing to support innovation
and change. Dexter states in Leadership for IT in Schools (2008), that many teachers, independently, will research and implement technologies in their classroom practice, without the guidance of administration. Though, often, an entire school staff may adopt school-wide goals for
how technology is used to support teaching and learning and perhaps to promote changes in
teaching or assessment practices. In such cases:
The outcome of IT leaders work to set direction is quite likely to be shaped by
larger initiatives or policies at the district, state/province, or ministry levels and

7
perhaps to also address issues related to student achievement and/or school improvement efforts (p. 545).
This may be documented by the organization in a vision and/or mission statement. Hughes and
Burke (2014), see the mission statement, when developed collaboratively, as something referred
to when decisions are made, become[ing] a common ground on which to base future change and
innovation (p.18)
ISB has forgone at the traditional vision/mission statement, opting for more flexibility in what
they call a School Development Plan, having a six month lifespan (KM, 2015). KMs refers to
the School Development Plan, as he reviews, reflects, and redesigns what can feasibly be
achieved with technology at the administrative, educator, and student levels. Thus, the School
Development Plan is the backbone for all technology-in-the-classroom initiatives, as well as a
benchmark document to review whether goals were reached within the timeframes allocated
(KM, 2015). Hughes and Burke (2014) believe success with any initiative is possible only when
the community takes ownership of it:
Creating a vision for school innovation in technology requires discussion and
agreement about the following three principles: (1) school and district priorities;
(2) principles, aims, and goals related to student learning; and (3) overall and specific expectations associated with any shift or change in direction of technology
use in the school (p.16).
After considering external variables, such as equipment purchase and software licensing, this
document becomes the base which KM, as the key change agent for classroom technology initia-

8
tives, drives the vision of ISB, while allowing the contribution of all stakeholders on an ongoing
basis. KM envisions that all involved would believe they have a voice in the development of
ISBs technology mandate, thus affording him a mechanism to compare educator goals with actual deliverables (KM, 2015).

Transformational Leadership - Intellectual stimulation

Hughes and Burke (2104), in reference to the work of Bass and Avolio (1994) state that intellectual stimulation is how well the leader stirs the imaginations of followers through encouragement
and support of innovation and creativity: Transformational leaders encourage their followers to
think creatively, and they do not penalize them or criticize them for mistakes (p.8). They focus
on resolving problems productively and are more likely to try something new and untested than
to rely on traditional, accepted practices that seem not to be working.
KM presently observes this encouragement and support of fellow staff as a moving target. In
his opinion, not enough release time is provided in the teaching schedule for him to personal
work with colleagues with the staff, as a whole, lacking gather time to share their classroom
practices, successes, and hiccups (KM, 2015). As a transformational leader, KM invites other
educators to visit his classroom to model how technology can be used in an educational setting,
as he views this confidence-building exercise an important success factor for those willing to try
something new in their own classroom practice (KM, 2015). Though, this is merely a suggested
practice and not something that is mandated by administration and continues to be unenforceable. As KM states, if educators expect students to be brave and creative in their learning, educa-

9
tors must be willing to do the same: we tell our students that that learn from our mistakes, but
we tend to hold a different expectation for ourselves as teachers (KM, 2015).
The modelling that KM provides (primarily through the use of tablets and cloud computing) is
similar toHughes and Burkes (2014) list of recommended actions, following the ISTE (2014)
standards:
engage students in exploring real-world issues, using digital resources;
model the construction of collaborative knowledge;
communicate relevant information and know using a variety to digital media and formats;
make use of a range of digital tools;
invite students to manipulate objects and demonstrate concepts and ideas using digital tools;
and, gather student data to inform further instruction (p.30)
The transformational leader promotes and supports the creation of learning environments along
these lines as the [leader] facilitates and reinforces the teachers important work in creating a
technology-rich learning environment that invites exploration, collaboration, critical thinking and
problem solving, and participation in tasks connected to real-world contexts (p.31).

Transformational Leadership - Individualized consideration

Individualized consideration, refers to how well the leader attends to each followers needs, acts
as a mentor to the follower, and listens to the concerns and needs of the follower (Hughes and

10
Burke, 2014). Transformational leaders provide support, stand alongside followers, treat people
as individuals, and respect their contributions to the team. This approach, in turn, develops intrinsic motivation in followers (p.8). If KM was to pinpoint difficulty in his educational technology leadership role, this development of motivation would be it. His mandate includes support educators with the implementation and integration of education technology but he is limited
his own scheduled full-time classroom duties. This has the direct effect of removing him from
the classrooms of his fellow educators, making any hands-on timely assistance with technology
integration difficult (KM, 2015). KM observes this adversely effecting his ability to mentor educators, as they only meet when free time in their mutual schedules align. Compounded this, as
mentioned earlier, is administration not factoring in release time for educators to meet and discuss their classroom initiatives. This lack of a defined, exclusive role in technology leadership
is troublesome. As KM states, am I an integrator of technology for the teachers, or am I the guy
that fixes the printer when I have a free moment? (KM, 2015).
Another issue that may derail KMs ability for individualized consideration is juggling the topdown management style of the administration. Educators are not encouraged to seek out technologies to improve the delivery of curriculum. KM observes, that if he did not research and implement new technologies himself, suggesting how they may be beneficial to teachers, little application of educational technology would be considered. When KM approaches administration
suggesting a technology purchase for the classroom (such as a 3D printer for the design technology department), the answer is often, thats a great idea, lets consider it for next year (KM,
2015). Even though a budget to acquire such technology exists, administration appear wary to
move forward with new initiatives. As a leader and voice for his fellow educators, KM sees this

11
is as demotivating for colleagues, undermining the schools desire to be a leading 21st Century
institution (KM, 2015).
Where KM observes success is in the mentoring of his fellow staff, when scheduling allows,
with the School Development Plan. If technology is to be included in any lesson, educators are
expected to review this use of technology with KM, to ensure application in a manner that promotes the SAMR model concept of Redefinition (KM, 2015). This affords time for KM to work
one-on-one with educators (though, admittedly, limited in scope and breadth). The main benefit,
in KMs opinion, is to ensure educators can continue with a lesson in the off-chance the technology chosen refuses to cooperate. He sees this is a key component in promoting confidence in
technology with his fellow educators (KM, 2015).
Hughes and Burke (2014) state, as the instructional leader in the school, the [leader] encourages
and supports the new vision (p. 36). Though educator ownership of this vision will be tenuous if
not championed by the transformational leader through individualized consideration (p.37). The
institution itself must support the type of learning environment that encourages students and
teachers to take risks and experiment with technology. By limiting the technology leaders ability
to work in tandem with educators, as well as appearing wary of purchasing and implementing
new technologies, may impede progress. According to KM, this ideal environment for innovation
is not quite there at ISB, though he is hopeful it will get there in time (KM, 2015).

Summary

12
According to Leithwood (1992), the transformational school leader is in constant pursuit of three
fundamental goals:
1) helping staff members develop and maintain a collaborative, professional
school culture;
2) fostering teacher development; and
3) helping them solve problems together more effectively.
(Leithwood, 1992, 910)
Bass and Avolios (1994) further research noted the four key elements of transformational leadership: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. To successfully guide educators and students with the acquisition 21st Century
skills, the transformational leader is a role model for those around them (idealized influence),
articulates a vision that inspires others and compels them to follow (inspirational motivation),
stirs the imaginations of followers through encouragement and support of innovation and creativity (intellectual stimulation), and attends to each followers needs (individualized consideration).
KM, as the Coordinator of ICT at The International School of Breda, is such a leader. He models
and promotes the vision of a 21st Century school, rich with technology that promotes collaboration within and outside the school grounds. He employs an organic, ever-changing document, the
School Development Plan, to guide educators towards the sound use of classroom technologies,
in line with the ISTE standards. Though, this role does come with its own set of constraints, as it
seems to lack clearly defined parameters allowing KM, as well as other stakeholders, to work in
tandem. Scheduled release time for teachers, as well as freeing the Coordinator of ICT from oth-

13
er classroom duties may crucial in moving ISB towards the ubiquitous use of technology in the
classroom. As a transformational leader, realizing where constraints exist and moving to remove
them would be a good first step.

14

Appendix A: Interview Questions and Timecode Location of Answers

1. Can you please introduce yourself (name, position)? (0:00-0:20)

2. How did you become the educational technology leader in your school? (0:22-1:59)
3. Is educational technology included in the mission and/or vision statement of the school? Is it
part of any documented long-term plan for the school? (1:02-1:44)
4. What is your vision for the ubiquitous use of educational technology in the classroom?
(1:46-2:27)
5. How do you support educators as they engage students through technology? (2:38-3:42)
6. What benefits of the use of educational technology in the classroom have you observed?
(3:44-4:45)
7. How do you model and promote the effective use of educational technology (intellectual stimulation)? (4:52 -5:58)
8. What model of technology integration does your school have (examples: iPads/laptops in mobile carts? A dedicated computer lab? A One-to-One technology model)? (6:02-7:03)
9. Does your school ban personal mobile devices? Why or why not? If the use of personal mobile
devices is not in your school tech plan, is there a plan to utilize them in the future? (7:08-8:07)
10. Does your school use, plan to use, or have thought about a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)
model? What pitfalls do you foresee or have experienced so far? (8:10-8:58)
11. Can you elaborate how teachers use technology in the school? (9:01-10:29)
12. Is there vetting process educators go through before introducing a new tech? (10:30-11:55)

15
13. How is the use of classroom educational technology communicated with parents? Are they
made away before new technology is included the curriculum? How does this process unfold?
(11:57-13:28)
14. Are educators expected to explain why they are using a particular technology in the classroom, or are they given free reign? (13:30-14:45)

15. Is there anything else about your role as an educational technology leader you would like to
share? (14:50-16:10)

16

Appendix B: The SAMR Model

The SAMR Model, developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, describes technology integration
through four levels defined as follows:

Substitution:

Technology is used as a direct substitute for what you might do already, with no
functional change.

Augmentation: Technology is a direct substitute, but there is functional improvement over what
you did without the technology.
Modification:

Technology allows you to significantly redesign the task.

Redefinition:

Technology allows you to do what was previously not possible.

17
While the first intuitive step for using any new classroom tool is to substitute it for what you already do, the goal for a teacher in a 1:1 classroom is to move beyond the substitution and augmentation levels (Enhancement) and toward the modification and redefinition levels (Transformation).

(source: ipadbootcampforteachers.com)

18

References

Bass, B. M. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Definition of transformational leadership. (n.d.). Retrieved February 17, 2015, from http://
www.langston.edu/sites/default/files/basic-content-files/TransformationalLeadership.pdf

Dexter, S. (2008). 6.1 Leadership for IT in Schools. In Voogt, G. & Knezek, G. (Eds). Springer
International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education,
pp. 543-553. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Fullan, M. & Leithwood, K. (2012). 21st Century Leadership: Looking Forward: An Interview
with Michael Fullan and Ken Leithwood. In Conversation, 4(1)

Hughes, J., & Burke, A. (2014). The Digital Principal. Markham: Pembroke Publishers.

ISTE Standards for Teachers. (2014). Retrieved February 23, 2015, from http://www.iste.org/
docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-T_PDF.pdf

19
Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49(5), 812.

KM. (2015, February 18). KM: The Unsuspecting Transformational Leader (W. Griffiths,
Interviewer) [Audio file]. Retrieved from https://soundcloud.com/warrenlgriffiths/
interview-with-an-educational-technology-leader

Models for Understanding Technology Integration. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2015, from
http://www.ipadbootcampforteachers.com/samrtpack.html

Webster, A. (2012, September 10). Beyond the classroom walls: breaking down barriers with
technology. The Guardian. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://
www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2012/sep/10/technology-schools-breakingdown-barriers